Knowledge of and attitudes about utility pruning and how education can help

Arboriculture and Urban Forestry

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 264-274

  Kuhns, Michael R ^a   Reiter, Douglas K ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Aesthetics; Directional pruning; Electric utility; Topping; Urban forestry

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY PRACTICE; LANDSCAPE; PRUNING; TREE; URBAN FORESTRY; UTILITY SECTOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34547119964     PISSN: 02785226     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Barnes, B. 1988. Community involvement/public outreach in line clearance. Journal of Arboriculture 14:298-301.
2. Brunson, M.W., and D.K. Reiter. 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 31-41.
3. Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (BTCE). 1997. Measuring the Benefits of Putting Cables Underground. Report published by BTCE, Canberra, Australia. www.dcita.gov.au/cables/files/bureau_a.doc (accessed 01/24/07).
4. Close, D.D., J.W. Groninger, J.C. Mangun, and P.L. Roth. 2001. Homeowners' opinions on the practice and effects of topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27:160-165.
5. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
6. Fazio, J.R. 2002. Tree Line USA. Tree City USA Bulletin No. 25, J.R. Fazio, ed. National Arbor Day Foundation, Nebraska City, NE.
7. Fazio, J.R., and E.E. Krumpe. 1999. Underlying beliefs and attitudes about topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 25: 192-199.
8. Flowers, D.E., and H.D. Gerhold. 2000. Replacement of trees under utility wires impacts attitudes and community tree programs. Journal of Arboriculture 26:309-318.
9. Galvin, M.F., and D. Bleil. 2004. Relationship among tree canopy quantity, community demographics, and Tree City USA program participation in Maryland, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 30:321-327.
10. Goodfellow, J.W. 1995. Engineering and construction alternatives to line clearance tree work. Journal of Arboriculture 21:41-49.
11. Grado, S.C., D.L. Grebner, M.K. Measells, and A.L. Husak. 2006. Status, needs, and knowledge of Mississippi's communities relative to urban forestry. Journal of Arboriculture 32:24-32.
12. Hunter, I.R. 2001. What do people want from urban forestry? - The European experience. Urban Ecosystems 5: 277-284.
13. Jarvik, E. 2007. Pruning is tricky mix of aesthetics, safety. Deseret Morning News, 8 January 2007. www.deseretnews.com (accessed 01/24/07).
14. Jensen, E.V. 2000. The effects of information on Danish forest visitors' acceptance of various management actions. Forestry 73:165-172.
15. Johnstone, R.A. 1983. Management techniques for utility tree maintenance. Journal of Arboriculture 9:17-20.
16. Johnstone, R.A. 1988. Economics of utility lateral trimming. Journal of Arboriculture 14:74-77.
17. Kempter, G. 2004. Best management practices: Utility pruning of trees. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.
18. Kempter, G. 2005. Utility pruning. Arborist News 14:12-17.
19. Kuhns, M.R. 1995. Trees and power lines. Leaflet 270, USU Extension.
20. Kuhns, M.R., M.W. Brunson, and S.D. Roberts. 1998. Land-owners' educational needs and how foresters can respond. Journal of Forestry 96:38-43.
21. Kuhns, M.R., B. Lee, and D.K. Reiter. 2005. Characteristics of urban forestry programs in Utah, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:285-295.
22. Letson, N. 2004. Survey says - Alabama citizens like urban trees. Action (from Alabama Cooperative Extension), Fall 2004, pp. 1-2.
23. McGillivary, L., S. Wiest, and D. Hensley. 1996. A survey of utility line clearance operations in Kansas. Journal of Arboriculture 22:281-282.
24. Miller, R. 1998. Why utilities V-out trees. Arborist News 7:9-14.
25. Muller, R.J. 2007. City's trees get no respect. Baltimore Sun, 10 January 2007. www.baltimoresun.com (accessed 01/24/07).
26. National Arbor Day Foundation (NADF). 2006a. Tree Line USA web page. www.arborday.org/programs/treeLineUSA.cfm (accessed 08/21/06).
27. National Arbor Day Foundation (NADF). 2006b. Tree City USA web page. www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA.cfm (accessed 08/18/06).
28. Odom, F.P. 2006. Less is more: Utility line clearance in Tallahassee, Florida. In: Energy pulse. www.energypulse.net (accessed 09/26/06).
29. Pauleit, S., N. Jones, G. Garcia-Martin, J.L. Garcia-Valdecantos, L.M. Rivière, L. Vidal-Beaudet, M. Bodson, and T.B. Randrup. 2002. Tree establishment practice in towns and cities - Results from a European survey. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1:83-96.
30. Schroeder, H.W. 1989. Esthetic perceptions of the urban forest: A utility perspective. Journal of Arboriculture 15:292-294.
31. Schroeder, H.W., and P. Appelt. 1985. Public attitudes toward a municipal forestry program. Journal of Arboriculture 11:18-21.
32. Schroeder, H.W., and W.N. Cannon. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture 9:237-243.
33. Shigo, A.L. 1990. Pruning trees near electric utility lines. Shigo and Trees Associates, Durham, NH.
34. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials. Journal of Arboriculture 30:205-213.
35. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2005. What do people want from their community forests? Results of a public attitude survey in Missouri, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:243-250.
36. Ulrich, E.S. 1987. Utility line clearance in our urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 13:62-64.